Somesh Tiwari vs Union Of India & Ors on 16 December, 2008
10. Somesh Tiwari V. Union of India and others, (2009) 2 SCC 592
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 43 (0.75 seconds)Article 162 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Director Of School Education Madras And ... vs O. Karuppa Thevan on 31 January, 1994
"2. The petitioner has been transferred from Meerut to Ghaziabad. Learned counsel
for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Director of
School Education, Madras v. O. Karuppa Thevan, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 666, and has
urged that in view of this decision, the petitioner could not be transferred in the mid-
term of his children studying in school. In our opinion, the aforesaid decision of the
Supreme Court does not lay down any principle of law that a Government employee,
whose children are studying in school, cannot be transferred during the mid-term of
his children studying in school. The aforesaid decision is mere a direction of the
Supreme Court without laying any principle of law. Such direction without laying
down any principle of law is not a precedent.
Punjab And Sind Bank vs Durgesh Kuwar on 25 February, 2020
10.4 Learned ASG on the point of judicial review has argued that this tribunal
is only having limited power under judicial review and this is not a court of
appeal and to support his contention he has relied upon the judgment in
Punjab & Sind Bank & Others Vs. Durgesh Kumar supra and the relevant para
of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:
N.K. Singh vs Union Of India on 25 August, 1994
2. N.K. Singh v. Union of india & Ors (1994) 6 SCC 1998
Union Of India And Another vs Central Electrical & Mechanical ... on 1 November, 2007
In Union of
India v. Central Electrical & Mechanical Engg. Service (CE&MES) Group 'A'
(Direct Recruits) Assn., CPWD [(2008) 1 SCC 354 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 173] ,
this Court held that the executive instructions could fill in gaps not covered
by the rules but such instructions cannot be in derogation of the statutory
rules.
Somesh Thapliyal vs Vice Chancellor H.N.B. Garhwal ... on 3 September, 2021
Union Of India And Ors vs S.L. Abbas on 27 April, 1993
12. Without commenting on the correctness of the order dated 24
May 2023 passed by the learned Tribunal in the case of Dr. Meenu
Mittal, we may only observe that the legal position with regard to
granting of interlocutory stay against transfer orders is no longer
res integra. There is a wide swathe of authorities, starting from
U.O.I. v. S.L. Abbas1 , which hold that transfer orders are
ordinarily not to be interfered with.
State Of Ap & Ors vs Goverdhanlal Pitti on 11 March, 2003
23. This is settled in law that exercise of power for an extraneous or ulterior
purpose amount to "malice in law". These are cases where, though the
authority has no corrupt motive or personal malice against the party affected,
yet the law will impute a fraud on the statute, if he has exercised the power
for a purpose other than that for which the enabling provision conferred the
power or discretion. Legal malice or malice in law means something done
without lawful excuse. In other words, it is an act done wrongfully and wilfully
without reasonable or probable cause, and not necessarily an act done from
ill-feeling and spite. It is a deliberate act in disregard of the rights of the other
(See: State of A.P. v. Goverdhanlal Pitti (2003) 4 SCC 739).
Punjab State Electricity Board Ltd vs Zora Singh & Ors on 11 August, 2005
10.1 Learned ASG further contended that if at all the applicants want to be
there for their children during their 10 th/12th academic session they can very
well avail the child care leave, etc which the authorities will also approve.
10.2 Learned ASG has relied upon the orders passed by the Hon.Supreme
court in Param Singh supra. The relevant paras of the said judgment are
extracted hereunder: